| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do we know the developers don't care about balance?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do we know the developers don't care about balance?There's FAR too many examples of lack of balance for it to not be deliberate.
There is a massive difference between not caring about game balance, and not putting balance above all else when designing a game. Designers CLEARLY care about game balance, or there would not be balance based errata. A key example was the change made to the paladins smite, or the errata over the monks flurry of blows and amulets of mighty fists.
Remember pathfinder also inherited most of its imbalance from 3.5. Since a primary design goal was to remain backwards compatable AND to retain the look and feel of 3.5, there was not much that could be done with the major issues that troubled 3.5.
There are dozens of posts if you bothered to look where Jason, James, Sean and everyone else talk about their concerns about balance. They arent willing to hack apart the game in order to force balance into it, but that isnt the same as not caring about it.
Oh, I don't know. It's all built on the shell of 3.0, and I'm inclined to believe that the 3.0 designers honestly didn't know how their game really worked. Not that I blame em, since they built so much customization into it that it would be hard to playtest every possible scenario. The PF designers have actually done a pretty good job of balancing the classes pretty well IMO. It's not perfect, since spells are just so flexible, but they've done some really good work buffing some of the core classes. And a lot of the non-core PF classes have been really interesting and powerful in their own way. So I don't think that the designers don't care about balance or aren't trying to build it into the game-- if anything, they've done a pretty solid job with it given the limitations of trying to preserve a 3.5 framework.
EDIT: Ninja'd.
Well... rogues have become less good because their niche protection was removed. But their "niche" was skills, and the designers decided to let every class enjoy getting skills. Which is a good decision, in my mind. Monks... ah, monks were always pretty terrible. The class suffers from an uncertain design goal-- what's the point of it? Mobile fighter? Anti-caster melee class? Versatile SLAs? I dont' see a singular vision there.
It seems to me that the advanced base classes are better balanced than the core classes. Or is that not a good assumption? Honestly I'm not too familiar with how most of them work, aside from Cavaliers not being fantastic.
We're not playing Glitterboy or Die, are we? Truth be told, I do enjoy Palladium.
Less sarcastically, play tests exist (so it's not about shoveling material out the door for sale). Further, I imagine *most* people would agree that there are decidedly more optimized choices for given mechanical tasks, and there are other options available which may be more in line with a personal character concept.
As Kolokotroni says, it's not all about balance, but balance shares weight in the design/development process.
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that the game designers don't care about game balance, why are there so many posts on these boards about game balance? Isn't that like complaining that a B1 Bomber makes a terrible submarine? If you're concerned about balance, why not play a game for which balance is a design goal?
It may be your opinion that we do not care about balance, but we do. But you have to ask yourself where are the important parts of balance in the Pathfinder game.
More often than not when fans and players talk about game balance they talk about some kind of dream of numerical equality among the classes. Is their DPR up to snuff? Is this class feature better than the other? What is the most optimal build? Does the monk suck, do rogues suck, are bards even worth it?
This is a very narrow way of looking at play balance and very subjective to a particular though prevalent style of gaming. A style of gaming I'm not unfamiliar with and I am actually sympathetic to. But there are other pivots of balance in the Pathfinder game. Some of which, I would argue are far more important to the designers of the game.
There is the balance of giving players interesting things to play, archetypes (and I mean that mostly in the loose sense rather than the mechanical set of the word) that multiple player types and styles of play will enjoy playing.
There is the balance of giving the GM enough tools, toys, and advice to frame the stories that she wants to create.
There is the balance of giving both players and GMs the best expression of the rules given the framework of the 3.5 ruleset it is based on.
There is the balance of presenting those rules, archetypes, toys, and advice in a way that rings true to the customs set down from decades of RPG social play and discussion, while being innovative and creating new design space and play experiences that will create a livid and more inclusive game experience.
There is the balance of fun and quick, vs. complete and vibrant.
And I haven't even mentioned the balance of business vs. the ideal. The balance of change for change's sake vs. "fixing" critical parts of the rules.
The truth is classes will never find a perfect numerical balance, but different classes and archetypes speak to different play styles. I hate playing bards. James Jacobs loves playing bards and does a fantastic job while doing so. I think the bard is a substandard class. James makes bards brilliant.
Case in point. Nearly a year ago I ran into a guy in a random local bar who chewed my ear off about Pathfinder. His main complaint (and the reason that I should hire him as a consultant) was that wizards still sucked compared to the fighter.
You heard that right...
After talking to him much longer than I wanted to, I told him this: "You're just wrong on this subject. You don't believe me, post that assumption on the Paizo messageboards. The problem is you prefer playing fighters to wizards, so just stop playing wizards."
We care about balance. Intensely. We talk about it. We fight about it. We cry about it. We aim to keep Pathfinder as a game, business, and institution as balanced as possible. We just don't have one pivot. And about that one particular pivot that is the subject of much chatter on these messageboard, we take a more nuanced approach.
Given that the game designers don't care about game balance, why are there so many posts on these boards about game balance? Isn't that like complaining that a B1 Bomber makes a terrible submarine? If you're concerned about balance, why not play a game for which balance is a design goal?It may be your opinion that we do not care about balance, but we do. But you have to ask yourself where are the important parts of balance in the Pathfinder game.
More often than not when fans and players talk about game balance they talk about some kind of dream of numerical equality among the classes. Is their DPR up to snuff? Is this class feature better than the other? What is the most optimal build? Does the monk suck, do rogues suck, are bards even worth it?
This is a very narrow way of looking at play balance and very subjective to a particular though prevalent style of gaming. A style of gaming I'm not unfamiliar with and I am actually sympathetic to. But there are other pivots of balance in the Pathfinder game. Some of which, I would argue are far more important to the designers of the game.
There is the balance of giving players interesting things to play, archetypes (and I mean that mostly in the loose sense rather than the mechanical set of the word) that multiple player types and styles of play will enjoy playing.
There is the balance of giving the GM enough tools, toys, and advice to frame the stories that she wants to create.
There is the balance of giving both players and GMs the best expression of the rules given the framework of the 3.5 ruleset it is based on.
There is the balance of presenting those rules, archetypes, toys, and advice in a way that rings true to the customs set down from decades of RPG social play and discussion, while being innovative and creating new design space and play experiences that will create a livid and more inclusive game experience.
There is the balance of fun and quick, vs. complete and vibrant.
And I haven't...
(attempt at humour: this post in no way represents the opinions of anybody but me)
TL;DR - *snerk*
What I would like looked at are the powers that COMPLETELY NEGATE other classes, or are so powerful as to be 100% required to have the game even function
Such as?
TL; DR and you play Pathfinder. That was funny. ;)
Simulacrum
I don't understand. Does it completely negate other classes, or is it required to have for the game to function? And how is a 7th-level spell that has been in them game since dirt a problem with the balance of Pathfinder?
How do we know the developers don't care about balance?Sean K reynolds posted that balance is impossible in pathfinder, so there is no point to try I guess
In what context?
And Simulacrum doesn't invalidate fighters. At least, if that's what you're using simulacrum for, it seems that Summon spells or the Leadership feat would be a lot more efficient.
Is your claim that old things are balanced because they are old, or that because they are old they don't have any problems?
I made no claims. I just asked a question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It negates having a fighter around, not required for the game to function.
Is your claim that old things are balanced because they are old, or that because they are old they don't have any problems?
Simulacrum is a 7th level spell. I guess my first question is: You don't need a Fighter for over the first half of your Wizard\Sorcerer's career?
Let's assume you don't.
At the point when you can cast it, you'll be 13th level. In order to create a duplicate of a Fighter, you first need to find said Fighter. You'll have to get his cooperation for 12 hours while you carve an ice sculpture of him.
Now, since you're 13th level, you'll need that Fighter to be 20th, because after you're done he'll only have half his actual levels; anything less than a 20th level fighter will give you less than a 10th level Fighter, who is not going to be too survivable against your 13th level challenges.
Don't forget that the disparity between power will get worse from there, since your illusory Fighter can't advance; he's as powerful as he can be. Since he's not a creature, you can't target him with actual buff spells, and you can't heal him either (outside of a laboratory, 24 hours of uninterrupted work, and a difficult repair process that will cost you more gold).
Oh, and you'll be paying 5,000g for it, since it's a 500g ruby per final HD of the creature.
I'm sorry if this comes off snarky, but how exactly does Simulacrum negate the need for a Fighter?
[edit]
Oh, also, let's not forget that you share no telepathic link with the creature, so you'll need to give him commands as well. If you get knocked unconscious, a real Fighter will rush to your side and drag you from the fray; your Simulacrum will continue doing whatever action you last commanded him to do, until he can no longer do it, at which point he stands there like a lump...
[edit2]
I suppose you don't HAVE to find the fighter or creature you want to duplicate. However, that raises an interesting problem: You'd need decent skill in Craft (Icecarving) in order to make the ice figure you're going to use, or you'll need to find someone to do it for you; in the former case, I'd require a Knowledge roll to ensure that you can get enough detail into the statue to make it a feasible reagent for the spell, and in the latter you'll have to spend time digging around until you can find a sculptor who can make the ice statue of the specific creature you want.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the designers think about balance somewhat (although not necessarily as a top priority), but with a few caveats.
1. First, in the quest for backwards compatibility, Pathfinder appears to be based on the assumption that core 3.5 defines balance (while ignoring the massive power-ups to casters and nerfs to martials that occurred between 1e/2e and 3e).
2. Second, from their posts and game feedback, the designers look at the game from a very specific playstyle: casters act as support for the martials; traps and everyone else wait around for the rogue to disable them; everyone happily lines up and files single-file into the next dungeon and no one questions the railroad. When faced with people who play casters to their limits, and try to fulfill a given in-game objective by the most efficient means (as opposed to following the script), they cringe and wring their hands and assure everyone that THOSE people don't represent the management.
3. Along the same lines, there is a built-in emphasis on enforcing stereotypes; examples include favored class bonuses, bonus spells as a class feature as opposed to part of the casting progression, and feat costs for mechanically weaker options that represent something uncommon in terms of fluff.
4. Finally, the designers are faced with the massive and thankless task of appealing to a fan base who, for the most part, views balance as solely the purview of an all-powerful DM. Any attempt to address balance in the rules, to these fans, is an evil attempt to rob the DM of his divine authority, so it must be opposed at all costs.
Even if the first three are totally false (and I don't believe they are), the third will effectively block any move towards greater class balance.
What I would like looked at are the powers that COMPLETELY NEGATE other classes, or are so powerful as to be 100% required to have the game even function
None of these things exist. Nothing completely negates any class. All the classes can function against an adventure. No single ability is required to complete any adventure ever created (unless the dm is being super arbitrary).
This is not a competative game. It is not pvp, a party plays together against an adventure created by the GM (or taken from published material). Any and all classes can contribute to this, and thus are neither completely negated, nor absolutely necessary.
That is not to say imbalance does not exist. It does, in spades. There are a whole bunch of sacred cows, bad impressions, legacy issues and mistakes made in pathfinder itself that litter the landscape of a really complex game. But the two things you want looked at dont exist in the context of an actual game of pathfinder.
Shrug. Summon spells don't cost 5000gp a pop like creating a duplicate Pit Fiend does. And I don't have to worry about my summoned monster being smote to smithereens by an NPC paladin like my 10HD Pit Fiend simulacra-- at the cost of 100gp per hp to heal.
I'm not the best on how to use Simulacrum, to be fair. My understanding is that Simulacrum is pretty abusable and that a lot of players and GMs recognize that it's cheese and just... don't use it. But it's also interesting and has uses outside of abusing it, so it's something interesting to leave in the game.
Heck, if you go by Xaratherus' usage of the spell, I can find a level 20 wizard and make a simulacrum of that wizard and replace myself. Wizards are underpowered because a spell can replace them!
Simulacrum is mostly a problem because it allows access to things that players should probably never have access to, I think
Simulacrum requires a huge set-up time, has a ton of logistics to actually put it in play (sure, you could get a Simulacrum of a creature with, say, 30 HD so you could get a 15 HD creature - but you have to find someone who can carve it in sufficient detail first), and eventually will be destroyed unless you continue to spend money to repair it after every day of battle.
If anything, Leadership is more imbalanced than Simulacrum, because it gets you an actual living, breathing cohort that you can buff and heal and who will advance with you, up to two levels behind you.
Given that the game designers don't care about game balance, why are there so many posts on these boards about game balance?
Because throwing balance out the window in a team game is a bad idea. You expect the wizard, the cleric, the rogue, and the fighter to all be together as they play and face challenges of all sorts, social, combat, and puzzle solving. There may be side missions such as rescue, escort, and theft. Ideally in a roleplaying game you run into a variety of things, but dnd loves dungeons and dragons more than diplomats and Hors d'oeuvre if I know my game right. It would suck if one of those four guys just didn't have a fun time. Niche design is one way to do it, but certainly far from my favorite because its a false way to make someone special because you take something from someone else. Alternatively making everyone competent but some people more competent than others is a good way to make sure everyone has fun(especially since there are more than just those four classes now. Which again isn't bad because it allows a variety of playstyles.)
If you're concerned about balance, why not play a game for which balance is a design goal?
I'm not sure if balance wasn't at least something of a design goal of pathfinder, but I should note some of us do play other games. Some of us have enough houserules our games look like another game. Not a bad thing, nor is it bad to have legitimate criticisms about the games you do play.
And how is a 7th-level spell that has been in them game since dirt a problem with the balance of Pathfinder?Well, reading your question, you are incredulous at the fact something that has been in the game for many years can be a problem.
Simulacrum is mostly a problem because it allows access to things that players should probably never have access to, I think
No...I do admit that I was really intrigued and doubtful about you choice. We were talking about the game in general, you suggested that there were some very sever problems, and you came up with this spell. A spell, that the game has functioned just fine with for a number of decades. A spell that only really affects the end game (where crazy things do happen). A spell that is relatively well-balanced compared to other abilities that create similar effects.
The summoner class I might of understood, especially with some builds out there, but this spell? I'm sorry, I'm just don't agree.
It is a spell that has rarely if ever been a topic of FAQ for Pathfinder or 3.5. A spell that was used with interesting effect in at least one of our Adventure Paths. A spell that is flavorful, fits with the lore of magic, and is quite frankly, fun.
You wanted answers about severe problems with the game, and I question whether or not this is really one of them. I do not question whether something that has been around a long time may have balance issues. I know better than that.
StuffKirth, I think your game has great ideas, but your post here is pretty derogatory and I think does not help discussion
I take it this is an inside joke?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*scratches head* While these are certainly important issues, are they issues of balance?
Yes. The game has certain expectations built into it and certain expectations that have been created by the customs of playing it and discussing it.
Another game I worked on (and I am very proud of my work on that game) tended to ignore these points of balance, and was not nearly as accepted as Pathfinder.
These are crucial points of balance typically not recognized by the player base because they are looking at the game through their own particular lenses and pursuing table-based self interest. And while they don't immediately recognize them, they sure as heck respond to them.
I would not make a fighter, I would make something with a lot more hd, like a monster instead. Also, simulacrum may follow your orders, but they do not have an int of -, like a golem. Finally, you actually need no craft checks to make the sculpture, but regardless, you can do craft untrained so you can take 10 for a decent one. The only check you need is a disguise check, and that is to make sure your pit fiend doesn't look like a dog or whatever, it doesn't change their stats
The requirements for the spell are "an ice sculpture of the target".
You are correct that the spell itself does not require it.
The spell does require the component, and the component either has to be purchased or created; it's not a standard component that you would normally see in a spell component pouch, nor could you carry it long-term since it's made of ice.
The fact that the spell states that it 'duplicates' the creature indicates (at least to me) that the carving needs to be somewhat accurate; otherwise what's the point of requiring the carving, it could just let you use a lump of ice if it was intended to allow you to use anything.
And even if we disregard all that, it leaves a number of valid counterarguments against Simulacrum somehow negating the need for a Fighter:
-You can't heal it normally
-You can't buff it because it's not a creature
-It doensn't level or improve in any way
-You don't even get to use it until you're halfway through your career
-If you make it some sort of horrendous creature, have fun doing anything within a town or city
Is it a powerful spell? Yes. It is as powerful as a cohort granted by Leadership? Not in my opinion. Does it negate the 'need' for an entire class? Again, not in my opinion, because it is far more limited than the actual class would be.
[edit]
That all said, I don't want to derail the thread anymore on this topic, so that's the last I plan on saying on it.
Re: The original topic of balance. I've played World of Warcraft for the past 7 years or so (about a fourth of the time that I've been tabletop gaming).
Personally? I dislike the majority of game changes that are only for purposes of balance. There are exceptions, but the truth is that I would rather the designers do a minimum to moderate job of balancing, and then as GM I can adjust further as I see fit for my table. I personally feel that Pathfinder is almost always right in that sweet spot.
Well, this thread is kinda rude. There's a pretty big difference between saying "Here's what I think is a big/small mistake in the game design" and "I think the devs just don't care about balance at all".
The first is a criticism of the game itself and a push for things to be changed. The latter is a personal attack on the devs, basically saying they don't care about their job.
That said:
It may be your opinion that we do not care about balance, but we do. But you have to ask yourself where are the important parts of balance in the Pathfinder game.
More often than not when fans and players talk about game balance they talk about some kind of dream of numerical equality among the classes. Is their DPR up to snuff? Is this class feature better than the other? What is the most optimal build? Does the monk suck, do rogues suck, are bards even worth it?
This is a very narrow way of looking at play balance and very subjective to a particular though prevalent style of gaming. A style of gaming I'm not unfamiliar with and I am actually sympathetic to. But there are other pivots of balance in the Pathfinder game. Some of which, I would argue are far more important to the designers of the game.
There is the balance of giving players interesting things to play, archetypes (and I mean that mostly in the loose sense rather than the mechanical set of the word) that multiple player types and styles of play will enjoy playing.
...
The problem I find with this post is that it seems to imply that numerical balance, and interesting character archetypes, GM tool, and so on are incompatible.
I've never found that to be the case. In my experience, the more numerically balanced a game is, the more options you have to work with.
Because bad options are non-options. You do not want to take them BECAUSE they are numerically imbalanced, or at the very least hesitate to do so.
If given a choice between a game with 5 good, balanced, and fun options and a game with 10 options (the balance between which varies from one or two being wildly OP to another one or two being crap) I'd take the former every time.
Fun and balance aren't ever incompatible, in either direction, but an imbalanced game is much more likely to be un-fun than a balanced one (unless the devs mess up on the balance there and "balance" by making everything the same).
THAT said, I know a lot of complaints aren't falling on deaf ears, it's just that they will not be changed in THIS version of the game (it'd be a completely different game afterwards for the big things). I know that every major problem or thing needing to be changed has at least one dev backing it, like SKR being behind re-defining martial characters and skills so after a certain point they are super-human (thus not arbitrarily restricted to be worse than casters by virtue of them being "mundane").
So I post in order for a consensus of sorts to be reached on what does need to be changed. And because I'm bored, more often than not.
The fact that the spell states that it 'duplicates' the creature indicates (at least to me) that the carving needs to be somewhat accurate; otherwise what's the point of requiring the carving, it could just let you use a lump of ice if it was intended to allow you to use anything.
Actually, no. It specifically says you just make a Disguise check to see how good the likeness is. It can be a Snowman and still work properly as the spell is written.
Actually, no. It specifically says you just make a Disguise check to see how good the likeness is. It can be a Snowman and still work properly as the spell is written.
I assumed that was not for the actual spell component but for the way that you 'transmute' it.
If you could just use a snowman and think "pit fiend", then what's the point of calling out that it needs to be an ice sculpture of the target? It could just as easily have said a 'snowball'.
The problem I find with this post is that it seems to imply that numerical balance, and interesting character archetypes, GM tool, and so on are incompatible.
I'm not implying that. I'm saying it is a pivot of balance. If everyone was as good at fighting as the fighter why would you play a fighter? If everyone was as good at flash-bang and control as the wizards, why would you play the wizard. If everyone had the skill-set of the rogue, why would you play the rogue?
You can come up with balance, but that balance can be rather subjective to play style. I hate bards. I don't like playing them, and I joke around the office that they suck. And I can point to a lot of evidence that bards suck. But every time James Jacobs plays one, I'm amazed. He does things with that class that are fun, interesting, and very useful. It sings to him and they make beautiful music together.
Bards don't suck. I just suck at playing bards. That's the pivot of balance I'm really getting at. It's not numerical, it can't be, though numbers do inform it. It's tonal.
I am glad we cleared up that you are indeed making the claim that old things are balanced.
Since that's not what he said, or even implied - there's a difference between saying, "It's balanced because it's old," and "Even though it's old, it's still balanced," (which is what he implied) - I find it ironic that you called out Kirth for making derogatory and unconstructive remarks.
I am glad we cleared up that you are indeed making the claim that old things are balanced.
As mud.
I guess my question is, at this point, if you find the game to be unbalanced and feel the designers don't care about fixing the problems with the game why are you still playing the game?
I don't mean this in a "if you don't like it you can get out" way, I'm honestly curious. It says to me that there is something(s) you like enough about the game that you keep coming back to it despite its flaws, that there is something that grabs you enough that you'd rather post your frustrations here than simply go play Eclipse Phase or Burning Wheel or Mutants and Masterminds or GURPS or anything White Wolf or old school D&D or Heavy Gear or Big Eyes Small Mouth or Legend of the Five Rings or ... you get the idea.
Personally, there are TONS of games I'd like to play but I keep coming back to Pathfinder because it's familiar, and it's geared towards a pretty specific style of gaming that I've (dare I say we've?) all gotten used to. Find monsters, kill monsters and take their stuff, get xp, investigate a murder, find monster responsibile, kill it and take its stuff, get xp, hear story about dungeon, go to dungeon and kill the residents and take their stuff and get xp ...
Nothing but D&D/Pathfinder quite gets that formula.
It seems that on a fairly constant basis, on this and other forums, people post talking about how X is overpowered or Y is underpowered or Z is game breaking and there are plenty of people on both sides each time. This tells me that the problem is, perhaps, less with the objective math and design of the game and more with playstyle, and that the style of game a group likes is as diverse as the number of groups playing. Even within the framework above!
In a word, "balance" is, as Stephen pointed out, a multi-faceted issue, and it will NEVER be perfect.
Even in 4e (GASP), which was built from the ground up to be balanced across all 30 levels across all classes from the get go, that tried to fix the issues from earlier editions, didn't quite succeed. There are just too many variables! People were one rounding Orcus within 2 months of release! And by going the route they did the designers inadvertently siphoned off some of the flavor built into the mechanics of earlier editions and made everyone feel more like a caster.
Which tons of poeple (myself included) enjoyed! And tons of people didn't! Because, I posit, it didn't gel with everyones playstyle. And maybe it didn't feel like D&D. Which is maybe why folks keep playing Pathfinder, trying to fix it by posting here or creating home rules (Kirth, who posted above, has an AWESOME set, by the way), instead of going to another RPG.
To get back to the OP's post, I don't think it is at all fair to say the game designers don't care about balance. I think it is legitimate to be of the opinion that the game ISN'T balanced, but with the caveat that it isn't balanced for you or your group, not necessarily in some objective way.
I guess what I'm getting at is, at what point do we have legitimate criticisms and ideas for making a better game that should be stated, and when does that go over the line into frustrated circular discussions that are probably best left alone? Do we as a community who loves this game really benefit from rehashing the old "wizards are better than fighters" argument for the 20th time? Should we house rule out spells like "simulacrum" and call it a day? Should we accept the flaws with the perks? Or should we simply take a break and play another game?
tl;dr - musings, possibly without a coherent structure
I am glad we cleared up that you are indeed making the claim that old things are balanced.I'm really glad that a developer took the time to participate in this thread. Putting words in his mouth, though, is a really good way to prevent communication.
This. My verbosity and snarkiness got the better of me.
I'm really glad that a developer took the time to participate in this thread. Putting words in his mouth, though, is a really good way to prevent communication.
No it's not. I have a thick skin and know baiting when I see it. No worries there.